Re: not measureable then just imangined?
Everyone claims the middle ground, but bias' soon show up.
Micro tuning your brain, listening for an improvement.
Micro tuning examples:
-$10000.00 interconnects, speaker cables.
-$2000.00 power cable.
-$8000.00 power conditioner.
-$500.00 isolation platform.
-$200.00 WBT binding posts.
-Etc, such as CD de-magnetizer, connector treatment solution,the list goes on.
Oh, and of course, ground pool electron trap - got a patent on this also Bud?
Nanook said:
Everyone claims the middle ground, but bias' soon show up.
Micro tuning your brain, listening for an improvement.
Micro tuning examples:
-$10000.00 interconnects, speaker cables.
-$2000.00 power cable.
-$8000.00 power conditioner.
-$500.00 isolation platform.
-$200.00 WBT binding posts.
-Etc, such as CD de-magnetizer, connector treatment solution,the list goes on.
Oh, and of course, ground pool electron trap - got a patent on this also Bud?
soongsc said:
I don't think anyone talked about coating the whole cone, were you trying to prepare them for the windter?
Bud mainly talked about coating the parts where the pattern is applied only.
A quick review from someone who actually read through this thread:
"Application of the conformal coating, on metal surfaces is only over the pattern, not the entire metal surfaces. For the paper you can apply it over all of the cone material, for much deeper bass as it will stiffen the paper, or just over the pattern for what has always been available."
Quote from post #2 by BubP.
No. It is no different than the EnABL process or the distributed capacitance cables and interconnects or the nutso stuff from my transformer world. I understood what I had done was both dangerous and foolish, with the EnABL pattern, in 1976. It took me until 1994 to find enough words, that had a meaning that a few people recognized, to allow me to write a patent presentation. The key words "boundary layer" were made available to me by Ned Nestorovic in 1989. Now there is a truly brilliant chap. It took me until perhaps 1992 to understand those words well enough to write the white paper I so incessantly point to.
I've only had a year or so on the cables and electron pools so I won't be applying for a patent until perhaps 2030 or so, long after my death.
So, take heart, even we slow learners can eventually crawl out into the light, to be eaten by vultures, thinking to themselves that we surely must be dead by now!!!!
Bud
John,
As for the coating thickness inferno, I use just the amount that controls what the pattern cannot, apparently by distributing the energy across the cone, or, disallowing the eruption of inter pattern surfaces into short duration resonances.
Soongsc has shown that systemic resonances can be dissipated by careful pattern positioning. I always hoped this might be true, but could not claim so, as I had no resources to work with and was just hanging on by my finger nails, intellectually, in any case. From his work it does look as though the coating material can be eliminated all together and that is a direction that will be investigated.
I can understand your disdain, after coating a soft paper cone with a pretty soft plastic coating, from a spray can. Any sort of helter skelter application of "doping" is more likely to make things just a different sort of dreadful, rather than improving intelligibility. Loaded dice to be sure.
That someone discovered C37, whatever that is, and used it effectively, is either a stroke of brilliance, armed with knowledge, or just another example of the quantum mechanical refrain "if it can happen, it will/has".
Certainly my use of acrylic paints does not fall into the first category, from the C37 drama. I was armed with knowledge though, having spent much of my young adulthood covered in paint, while attending various art classes and an art college.
Having to work on the varied surfaces, presented by the Ohm F driver, pretty much determined the breadth of material choices. I needed something that would come back off of metal surfaces, without hard scrubbing with chemicals that altered my brain chemistry beyond usability.
So, take heart, try something foolish. Not deadly, like with HV and tubes, just foolish, and perhaps you too can have a patent that almost no one understands. Look at Lincoln Walsh, most professional audio folks still do not credit his work with anything but the title of nonsense, and he has multiple patents.
Bud
As for the coating thickness inferno, I use just the amount that controls what the pattern cannot, apparently by distributing the energy across the cone, or, disallowing the eruption of inter pattern surfaces into short duration resonances.
Soongsc has shown that systemic resonances can be dissipated by careful pattern positioning. I always hoped this might be true, but could not claim so, as I had no resources to work with and was just hanging on by my finger nails, intellectually, in any case. From his work it does look as though the coating material can be eliminated all together and that is a direction that will be investigated.
I can understand your disdain, after coating a soft paper cone with a pretty soft plastic coating, from a spray can. Any sort of helter skelter application of "doping" is more likely to make things just a different sort of dreadful, rather than improving intelligibility. Loaded dice to be sure.
That someone discovered C37, whatever that is, and used it effectively, is either a stroke of brilliance, armed with knowledge, or just another example of the quantum mechanical refrain "if it can happen, it will/has".
Certainly my use of acrylic paints does not fall into the first category, from the C37 drama. I was armed with knowledge though, having spent much of my young adulthood covered in paint, while attending various art classes and an art college.
Having to work on the varied surfaces, presented by the Ohm F driver, pretty much determined the breadth of material choices. I needed something that would come back off of metal surfaces, without hard scrubbing with chemicals that altered my brain chemistry beyond usability.
So, take heart, try something foolish. Not deadly, like with HV and tubes, just foolish, and perhaps you too can have a patent that almost no one understands. Look at Lincoln Walsh, most professional audio folks still do not credit his work with anything but the title of nonsense, and he has multiple patents.
Bud
BudP said:
The stuff that I used is far from soft, but is recommended for high use furniture and hardwood floors. It really stiffened the paper.
A quick google search has turned up:
http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/M...?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=RAM&Category_Code=C37
They sell it. $115.00 for one ounce. What a deal!
They call it lacquer, but it is most likely an oil based varnish or solvent based polyurethane (which is a kind of soft plastic).
This I know because the recommended thinner is turpentine (more artsy) or mineral spirits and not lacquer thinner.
Also it takes a while to dry.
Yet another case of highway robbery.
MJL21193 said:
C37 has no plastic in it. SY did a 1st level chemical analysis on it, and suggested it was fairly typical of natural insect based musical instrument varnishes/laquers (which is what it is) with a high concentration of linseed oil.
Certainly its price tends (and the explanation of how it works) many to instantly brand it as snale oil. But on those drivers it does work on, it works on fabuosly and it doesn't cost that much because you only need a vanishingly small amount. For instance the CSS FR125 is transformed positively by 2 thin coats -- there is probably enuff C37 in an ounce to do 100-200 drivers. At that point the labour to apply the coatings swamps the cost of the C37.
It is also not a universal panacea... for instance not working as well as puzzlecoat on a Fostex banana paper cone (within my limited experimentation it almost seems that you can tell how well C37 will work by the effort needed to apply it to the paper in question)
dave
MJL21193 said:Now, now. I've done nothing to you to deserve this personal attack.
Except being quite adamant that there is no need to back up your close-minded diatribes with actual experience & completely dismissing what trained listeners are hearing as mass hysteria.
In the case of EnABLE there is lots of valid scientific endeavour to suggest very plausible physical processes that would provide a theoretical basis for why is works.
1/ over & over when you talk to speaker driver designers they talk about how much edge termination can affect a drivers performance (ie a know problem to fix)
2/ shark's skin, submarine hull developments that emulate shark skins, golf balls, and B&W flow ports have all shown the small pertebations in the (dimples in these cases) can have a very significant & measureble effect on performance.
3/ EnABLE is an empirically developed pattern of pertebations, that produce an audible change very much in step with what is heard, if indeed it is acting to dramatically reduce the problems/reflections inherent in edge termination.
That last is theory, but an important one to be able to approach testing & measuring what is happening physically and then to be able to develop & apply models to improve the pattern/techniques to work even better.
The differences are real and not all that subtle (althou sometimes hard to get your head around), and even with your low resolution Yamaha based system i would be surprised if you couldn't hear the difference.
dave
planet10 said:
Tradional oil based varnish has resin derived from tree sap (different varieties). Thinner for this is turpentine, mineral spirits.
Lacquer has it's resin extracted from a certain type of tree, secretions from the lac beetle or from cotton (nitrocellulose). Solvents for these are (in order) water, alcohol and toluene.
If anything, it's varnish.
John,
Actually nothing wrong with the signal side of Yamaha equipment. You just need some pools, some cables and a set of EnABL'd drivers from Dave to flesh out the fine skeleton that already is in your listening zone. I have yet to find very many pieces of gear, except those that come from folks who think Audio is accomplished with and by presentation of an attitude, that were anything but stellar performers.
But, when they run out of electrons for tiny signal retention, where ever in the chain it occurs, they are prone to shriek unexpectedly, cause violins to sound like steel stringed instruments, horns to sound like kazoo's and drum heads to sound like stretched wool carpeting.
Just as soon as the difficult part is passed, they sound fine again.
Ideally all equipment would have real ground planes and the effects of the pools would be swallowed, just as they should be.
Ideally drivers would not exhibit reflected energy and diffractions and the EnABL process would be mute. As it is, by the way, on EV 350 tweeters. Full treatment, no audible difference. Did not harm nor help. They were only being used above 11kHz, but still, if an improvement were to be made, it should have been audible.
Ideally cables and interconnects should all sound exactly alike, no loss of information, no addition of information, no alteration of information. And then you hear cables that just retain too much information, without coloration, without phase shift and discover that their apparent operating principles allow for "tunning" of some idiocy called dynamic color.
Ideally none of the above would be a bother and we would all win the lotto every day, have great sex, eat non fattening gourmet meals and drive Ferrari's.
So, really, ideally, you should go hunting what has gone wrong with this place....
Bud
Actually nothing wrong with the signal side of Yamaha equipment. You just need some pools, some cables and a set of EnABL'd drivers from Dave to flesh out the fine skeleton that already is in your listening zone. I have yet to find very many pieces of gear, except those that come from folks who think Audio is accomplished with and by presentation of an attitude, that were anything but stellar performers.
But, when they run out of electrons for tiny signal retention, where ever in the chain it occurs, they are prone to shriek unexpectedly, cause violins to sound like steel stringed instruments, horns to sound like kazoo's and drum heads to sound like stretched wool carpeting.
Just as soon as the difficult part is passed, they sound fine again.
Ideally all equipment would have real ground planes and the effects of the pools would be swallowed, just as they should be.
Ideally drivers would not exhibit reflected energy and diffractions and the EnABL process would be mute. As it is, by the way, on EV 350 tweeters. Full treatment, no audible difference. Did not harm nor help. They were only being used above 11kHz, but still, if an improvement were to be made, it should have been audible.
Ideally cables and interconnects should all sound exactly alike, no loss of information, no addition of information, no alteration of information. And then you hear cables that just retain too much information, without coloration, without phase shift and discover that their apparent operating principles allow for "tunning" of some idiocy called dynamic color.
Ideally none of the above would be a bother and we would all win the lotto every day, have great sex, eat non fattening gourmet meals and drive Ferrari's.
So, really, ideally, you should go hunting what has gone wrong with this place....
Bud
A few more thoughts
Hee, hee, hee. Stirred up a bit of a hornets nest, didn't I.
Anyway, as much as I would like to publish a waterfall with greater detail, my room has a noise floor of about 55 db. The signals I used were at 85 db, so all the resultion you are going to get is 30 db. That is what I showed. There is more resolution available, and it neatly shows the white noise in my room. Sorry, no help here.
The confromal coating may very well have stiffened up parts of my cone. I recogize the the smaller, 5 inch Lowthers have a similar ability to image and present transient attacks as the EnABL'ed 8 inch units. The smaller cones are stiffer. So am I just listening to stiffer cone? That would explain things on one level. The 8 inch units have great dynamics, and to my ears they flow better with the music. The EnABLed drivers allow me the best of both. I like this.
Right now I am unwilling to treat a bunch of $250 cones and try to determine the difference between EnABL with and without the conformal coating. Interesting experiment, and one I hope someone runs.
But I will say that a number of clients have reported similar results. Mass hysteria. Naw, not when I can change between two drivers and hear an obvious difference. If you are in Chicago please drop by and try it yourself. (But wait a couple of weeks, my untreated cones are on loan). Both pair will be at RMAS, and I will do an after hours demonstration Friday evening for those who show up.
Many times in this industry it has taken a long time for measurements and theory to catch up with what we have been hearing. Remember when THD was the ONLY measurement of importance in amplifiers. And it was not too long ago that wire was wire - nothing exotic was even available. Same for capacitors, etc., etc. What about break in periods? Warm up periods for SS amps??
Allen Wright has long championed the concept that the DDR (Downward Dynamic Range) of a system, the ability of a system to resolve information BELOW the noise floor, makes noticable and obvious improvement in the sound of amplifiers. Is he a goof?? 2 time Amp of the year at EnjoyTheMusic.Com?
Enough, you get the idea.
Finally, Bud is making this available to the hobbiest and has written a great deall here about how to do it for FREE. Oh boy, he must be raking in the money giving his stuff away.
Please, absolutely feel free to criticize the EnABL process after you have tried it. If it did not improve the sound of my system you would be hearing me say that.
Hee, hee, hee. Stirred up a bit of a hornets nest, didn't I.
Anyway, as much as I would like to publish a waterfall with greater detail, my room has a noise floor of about 55 db. The signals I used were at 85 db, so all the resultion you are going to get is 30 db. That is what I showed. There is more resolution available, and it neatly shows the white noise in my room. Sorry, no help here.
The confromal coating may very well have stiffened up parts of my cone. I recogize the the smaller, 5 inch Lowthers have a similar ability to image and present transient attacks as the EnABL'ed 8 inch units. The smaller cones are stiffer. So am I just listening to stiffer cone? That would explain things on one level. The 8 inch units have great dynamics, and to my ears they flow better with the music. The EnABLed drivers allow me the best of both. I like this.
Right now I am unwilling to treat a bunch of $250 cones and try to determine the difference between EnABL with and without the conformal coating. Interesting experiment, and one I hope someone runs.
But I will say that a number of clients have reported similar results. Mass hysteria. Naw, not when I can change between two drivers and hear an obvious difference. If you are in Chicago please drop by and try it yourself. (But wait a couple of weeks, my untreated cones are on loan). Both pair will be at RMAS, and I will do an after hours demonstration Friday evening for those who show up.
Many times in this industry it has taken a long time for measurements and theory to catch up with what we have been hearing. Remember when THD was the ONLY measurement of importance in amplifiers. And it was not too long ago that wire was wire - nothing exotic was even available. Same for capacitors, etc., etc. What about break in periods? Warm up periods for SS amps??
Allen Wright has long championed the concept that the DDR (Downward Dynamic Range) of a system, the ability of a system to resolve information BELOW the noise floor, makes noticable and obvious improvement in the sound of amplifiers. Is he a goof?? 2 time Amp of the year at EnjoyTheMusic.Com?
Enough, you get the idea.
Finally, Bud is making this available to the hobbiest and has written a great deall here about how to do it for FREE. Oh boy, he must be raking in the money giving his stuff away.
Please, absolutely feel free to criticize the EnABL process after you have tried it. If it did not improve the sound of my system you would be hearing me say that.
Re: A few more thoughts
Raking in the money. I didn't suggest that Bud's sole motivation was to make money from this. Still, the potential is there, he has a patent on the process
For instance: Lowther America is convinced the process is a definite improvement and decides it should be offered as an upgrade to it's customers. Lowther America then has to buy licence rights from the patent holder.
I'm not against anyone making money, and if Bud were to become rich beyond his wildest dreams through this process, that's great. I just don't know if this forum should be the test bed and marketing lauchpad for a patented process.
Don't laugh, stranger things have happened.
Jon Ver Halen said:
Raking in the money. I didn't suggest that Bud's sole motivation was to make money from this. Still, the potential is there, he has a patent on the process
For instance: Lowther America is convinced the process is a definite improvement and decides it should be offered as an upgrade to it's customers. Lowther America then has to buy licence rights from the patent holder.
I'm not against anyone making money, and if Bud were to become rich beyond his wildest dreams through this process, that's great. I just don't know if this forum should be the test bed and marketing lauchpad for a patented process.
Don't laugh, stranger things have happened.
John,
It appears to me some people are trying to quietly analyse this and work out how to measure and explain it in a scientific way.
Differing opinions must be shared. Balance is important and I'm sure no-one wants to waste their time investigating a particular avenue if you understand why it won't work.
Concisely and politely explaining why you disagree with a particular point will be most helpful. I'd love for you to scientifically pick this theory to pieces so I can learn something.
Virtually stomping about bellowing it's all rubbish and looking for things to pick on is not constructive. The "it's all rubbish" approach is equally as pointless as the mutual masturbation some exotic tweak discussions devolve into. I appreciate you for providing some balance, but it might be a little heavy handed. Don't let my little whinge deter you from sharing your opinions, I'm just suggesting you put a gentle spin on them so people are more inclined to listen.
It appears to me some people are trying to quietly analyse this and work out how to measure and explain it in a scientific way.
Differing opinions must be shared. Balance is important and I'm sure no-one wants to waste their time investigating a particular avenue if you understand why it won't work.
Concisely and politely explaining why you disagree with a particular point will be most helpful. I'd love for you to scientifically pick this theory to pieces so I can learn something.
Virtually stomping about bellowing it's all rubbish and looking for things to pick on is not constructive. The "it's all rubbish" approach is equally as pointless as the mutual masturbation some exotic tweak discussions devolve into. I appreciate you for providing some balance, but it might be a little heavy handed. Don't let my little whinge deter you from sharing your opinions, I'm just suggesting you put a gentle spin on them so people are more inclined to listen.
John,
Well, making money from this was not in the cards until just recently. The forum had nothing to do with the only possibility to come down the pike since 1974. Making money is still not a foregone conclusion and if I were concerned about making money, off of this patent, I would have had to go about it in a rather different fashion.
What really caught my eye was Dr Mamboni discussing a novel approach to correcting the corruptions I was familiar with, from a point of view really quite original. I have always treated both sides of my personal drivers and have, to a degree, suffered the consequences. Here was an answer, provided for free with a number of folks willing to participate. I was moved to join in. This was the first time I had spoken in a public forum about EnABL and had stopped thinking about it a number of years earlier.
You must understand, I could get no traction. Even when I was allowed to demonstrate the effects of the process to professional engineers, my peers from a different discipline, the obvious improvements were discarded out of hand. Arguments referring to Baranek's Acoustics, the basic treatise on loudspeakers, were dismissed and all comments made in support were consigned to wishful thinking.
I had simply given up and had discarded the idea as fruitless and was literally in the process of forgetting about it. Dr Mamboni's ideas and the response of those who were paying attention, so heartened me I overcame my fears and posted. To warm comments and interest. Something quite foreign to me, with this EnABL item.
So, I have provided it for free, to whomever wants to do it for themselves, from this forum. I have provided as much support as I know how to provide and will continue to do so, regardless of the flavor of comments made concerning either my intentions or my aims.
The possibility of renumeration came from a patent search. This was a direct statement by the acoustician involved. He was surprised, a bit concerned, but overall delighted that a path, parallel to the one he had envisioned, was occurring here.
He had already applied the pattern to his FEA programs and was already convinced of it's applicability to the products he was envisioning. They had nothing what so ever to do with high end audio reproduction.
No question that I will agree to treat drivers from individuals, for money. No doubt that a few advanced loudspeaker makers are going to get involved. No doubt that this has been aided by this forum. But, you know, I see many other people, with very good ideas turned into reality, posting here, offering their knowledge and at the same time offering their products. If someone does not feel comfortable applying the pattern to their own property, I will do it for them. Why shouldn't they also get to participate and benefit from the changes the patterns bring about?
As for "using the forum", well, that is what humans do, use their tools. If I was forcing others to pay some form of tribute, to buy some sort of "kit" only I could provide, offering partial information as a dangling carrot to be consumed for the small price of $29.95 then I would consider it misuse of the forum.
If you truly feel I am out of line, we need to get the moderators involved. They warned me quite sternly, right at the beginning of my time here, about this very thing. I am known to some of them from other places and my commercial ties to commercial audio amplifiers, through transformers, were well known to them. So, either they are asleep at the switch or I have not offended the pretty carefully drawn guidelines I was given.
Were I to disappear from this forum, and all of my scribblings were to be removed, it would not alter what comes about with EnABL, in a commercial sense. It would appear it's time has just finally come. Much to my surprise.
Bud
Well, making money from this was not in the cards until just recently. The forum had nothing to do with the only possibility to come down the pike since 1974. Making money is still not a foregone conclusion and if I were concerned about making money, off of this patent, I would have had to go about it in a rather different fashion.
What really caught my eye was Dr Mamboni discussing a novel approach to correcting the corruptions I was familiar with, from a point of view really quite original. I have always treated both sides of my personal drivers and have, to a degree, suffered the consequences. Here was an answer, provided for free with a number of folks willing to participate. I was moved to join in. This was the first time I had spoken in a public forum about EnABL and had stopped thinking about it a number of years earlier.
You must understand, I could get no traction. Even when I was allowed to demonstrate the effects of the process to professional engineers, my peers from a different discipline, the obvious improvements were discarded out of hand. Arguments referring to Baranek's Acoustics, the basic treatise on loudspeakers, were dismissed and all comments made in support were consigned to wishful thinking.
I had simply given up and had discarded the idea as fruitless and was literally in the process of forgetting about it. Dr Mamboni's ideas and the response of those who were paying attention, so heartened me I overcame my fears and posted. To warm comments and interest. Something quite foreign to me, with this EnABL item.
So, I have provided it for free, to whomever wants to do it for themselves, from this forum. I have provided as much support as I know how to provide and will continue to do so, regardless of the flavor of comments made concerning either my intentions or my aims.
The possibility of renumeration came from a patent search. This was a direct statement by the acoustician involved. He was surprised, a bit concerned, but overall delighted that a path, parallel to the one he had envisioned, was occurring here.
He had already applied the pattern to his FEA programs and was already convinced of it's applicability to the products he was envisioning. They had nothing what so ever to do with high end audio reproduction.
No question that I will agree to treat drivers from individuals, for money. No doubt that a few advanced loudspeaker makers are going to get involved. No doubt that this has been aided by this forum. But, you know, I see many other people, with very good ideas turned into reality, posting here, offering their knowledge and at the same time offering their products. If someone does not feel comfortable applying the pattern to their own property, I will do it for them. Why shouldn't they also get to participate and benefit from the changes the patterns bring about?
As for "using the forum", well, that is what humans do, use their tools. If I was forcing others to pay some form of tribute, to buy some sort of "kit" only I could provide, offering partial information as a dangling carrot to be consumed for the small price of $29.95 then I would consider it misuse of the forum.
If you truly feel I am out of line, we need to get the moderators involved. They warned me quite sternly, right at the beginning of my time here, about this very thing. I am known to some of them from other places and my commercial ties to commercial audio amplifiers, through transformers, were well known to them. So, either they are asleep at the switch or I have not offended the pretty carefully drawn guidelines I was given.
Were I to disappear from this forum, and all of my scribblings were to be removed, it would not alter what comes about with EnABL, in a commercial sense. It would appear it's time has just finally come. Much to my surprise.
Bud
- Status
- Not open for further replies.